Why I Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage”—Part II
By Jerry A. Kane
As a rule I seldom engage fools in their folly, but I have on occasions made exemptions for former students. The exchange below is one such exemption that occurred on Facebook:
I.M. Kane
Student: Perez v. Sharp, Perez v. Lippold, Loving v. Virginia – in each of these court cases, arguments were made against interracial marriage. These arguments included that interracial marriage was unnatural in he eyes of God, that it was “always productive of deplorable results” (Perez v. Lippold), that it leads to incest, that interracial marriage spreads disease, and that it’s bad for children to be raised in such an environment.
Does this sound familiar? We may know better now, but the arguments themselves haven’t changed – only their target has.
Asserting that something is true doesn’t make it true; outside of the Bible and Christianity in general, what studies are in place that show that homosexuality is purely a choice? From what I can see, the results are a mixed grab-bag at best – with some homosexuals saying it’s a choice that was made, others saying they were born that way, and sociological/psychological/biological studies show just about everything in-between. Personally, I’m about as straight as an arrow – I don’t find any physical attraction to the male figure. If homosexuality is a choice, then why is it a choice that I seem naturally inclined to make for myself – without anyone telling me what’s natural or unnatural? Where is the evidence for what you’re claiming?
I’m not throwing out the rule of law, but I do realize that morality and legality have absolutely nothing to do with one another – it’s not tyranny to support homosexual marriage any more than it’s tyranny to condemn it, but the application of force by the government to try and combat a victimless crime is something that I find abhorrent. I agree with you that forcing homosexual marriage on those who morally oppose it is tyranny, but no one is putting a gun to anyone’s head and saying, “Marry a homosexual”. Just because the State recognizes a union between two consenting adults doesn’t mean that you have to, any more than two atheists getting a marriage license are recognized as being married by a Christian church.
I recognize that people in the 1960’s opposed interracial marriage for reasons of prejudice – but I also understand that, in the minds of those who fought so passionately against it, it -was- an issue of morality. To them, there were very real moral justifications for what they believed in, and very little in the way of facts.
Yes, I understand that Big Brother is in reference to George Orwell’s 1984; Big Brother is synonymous for the abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties. We do not live in a totalitarian state, but a totalitarian state isn’t a prerequisite for abuse of government power.
I don’t think that I’m being naïve when I say that the government has no place in legislating my morality. A government is supposed to protect our natural rights, not grow large enough to dictate who we can marry and what we do with other consenting adults.
..And only a Sith deals in absolutes.
I.M. Kane: This may be a matter of pearls before swine as I have other responsibilities and matters of greater importance that warrant my attention; but I will address your folly lest you think yourself wise.
The argument made against interracial marriage in the court cases you cited is extraneous to the point, i.e., skin color and sexual behavior are mutually exclusive. Just because lawyers used a similar argument to oppose interracial marriage doesn’t invalidate the argument. The argument doesn’t apply to race, but it most certainly does apply to homosexual behavior.
You would be hard pressed to find a biblical basis to forbid interracial marriage or that it is unnatural in the eyes of God. The Bible does not forbid interracial marriage; it forbids believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from marrying unbelievers and idolaters involved in pagan religions. Conversely, the Bible does condemn homosexuality as unnatural in the eyes of God; in fact, the Bible calls it an abomination. As for interracial marriage spreading STDs, if the lawyers provided stats to support their claim, I think their facts would prove to be dubious at best. However, the claim that homosexual sex increases the risk of STDs is quite valid.
Homosexual sex leads to greater health risks and the spreading of STDS because the rectum was not designed for anal intercourse. The vagina has natural lubricants; it is supported by a network of muscles and a mucus membrane that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist infectious agents carried in the semen. Conversely, the anus (sphincter) is an “exit-only” passage comprised of small muscles. With repeated friction and stretching, the anus loses tone and the ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal matter that can easily become chronic. A British researcher summarizes the danger as follows:
“[P]enile-anal … sexual contact … may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area.” (See, R. R. Wilcox, “Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male Homosexuals,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981)).
Only a single, thin layer of tissue separates the intestine [rectum] from highly vascular tissue, which is blood. That means organisms introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in the vagina. This thin layer of tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, which means that anal-genital intercourse exposes participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluid.
The fragility of the anus and rectum allows for the easy transmission of HIV and other infections during anal-genital intercourse. The following list of diseases is frequently found among male homosexuals who engage in anal intercourse:
· Anal Cancer
· Chlamydia trachomatis
· Cryptosporidium
· Giardia lamblia
· Herpes simplex virus
· Human immunodeficiency virus
· Human papilloma virus
· Isospora belli
· Microsporidia
· Gonorrhea
· Viral hepatitis types B & C
· Syphilis
Data from a 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report point out the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among homosexual and bisexual men in the United States. An analysis of the data shows that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women. (See, CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men. Press Release. Wednesday, March 10, 2010.)
A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted. Considering homosexuals comprise between 1and 3 percent of the population, they have a significantly higher rate of Hepatitis B than heterosexuals. (See, Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p.293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.)
Data collected in 1989 show that the rates of anal cancer among homosexual males is 10 times that of heterosexual males, and on the rise. The rates double for those with AIDS. (See, Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., “Changing patterns of anal cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994.))
Health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle is undeniable. Increased risks of STDs, physical injuries, mental disorders, and a shortened lifespan are all by-products of the homosexual lifestyle. Human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate anal intercourse.
You ask, “what studies are in place that show that homosexuality is purely a choice?”
Were you free of your mind-forged manacles you could have conducted a search and found the following studies quite easily:
· “The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science” at http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.
· “Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14567650.
· “Human sexual orientation. The biologic theories reappraised” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8439245.
· “Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12585809.
· “Partway Gay? For Some Teen Girls, Sexual Preference Is A Shifting Concept” at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53140-2004Jan4?language=printer.
There is no scientific evidence that shows homosexuality is genetic. The media have perpetuated the myth of a homosexual gene. I think homosexuality has more to do with socialization and a learned, preferred lifestyle than genetics.
Race and gender are not optional lifestyles. They remain immutable. Conversely, homosexuality is not an immutable condition; it is a learned behavior. The predominant cause of homosexual behavior is the result of social conditioning by parents, siblings, dating, and interacting with others.
“The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish. Homosexuality is … something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits.”—John DeCecco, professor of psychology San Francisco State University
If homosexuality is genetic, then homosexuals are not responsible for their behavior because they can’t change their genetic predisposition. The same reasoning would hold true for child molesters who also claim to have a genetic predisposition for their sexual desires. Shouldn’t they be allowed to fulfill their desires if enough studies support the view that pederasty and pedophilia are in fact quite harmless and should not be considered sexual abuse?
Sane people would agree that it is unnatural, perverted, and depraved to sexually molest children. Pederasts and pedophiles were not born with those desires; they learned them, whether intentional or not. The same is true for homosexual behavior. What is learned can be unlearned.
Homosexual behavior is a voluntary act controlled by the human will, as is heterosexual behavior. According to author, teacher, social critic, and lesbian activist Camille Paglia:
“Homosexuality is ‘not normal’. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. … [T]here is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise.”
Consider also that homosexuality was rampant throughout the ancient world, especially in ancient Greece. Unless ancient Greece suffered from a genetic outbreak of homosexuality, what explains an entire society normalizing and practicing homosexuality?
You go on to say that “morality and legality have absolutely nothing to do with one another [and] that the government has no place in legislating my morality.”
Sheer nonsense! Don’t you know that every law springs from a system of values and beliefs, i.e., every law is an instance of legislating morality? Furthermore, a nation’s laws help shape the beliefs, character, and actions of its citizens. It is impossible to separate morality from law, so your point about legislating morality is moot. The real question is which moral system will be made legally binding.
It’s not a matter of whether morality can be legislated; the question is “Whose morality should be legislated?” To argue that homosexual behavior should be viewed and treated the same as heterosexual behavior suggests that you have adopted a moral position. And to call me a bigot for not agreeing with your moral position on homosexual behavior is a moral judgment. Obviously, you believe that your moral position on homosexual behavior is beyond reproach, so anyone who disagrees or challenges it is a bigot. Such colossal ignorance is either the product of an educational deficit or the product of narrow-minded thinking.
You ask, “why is it [my sexual preference] a choice that I seem naturally inclined to make for myself – without anyone telling me what’s natural or unnatural?”
Whether you realize it or not, you internalized and adopted the societal norms and expectations imposed by your generalized other.
I did not concoct my own morality; I inherited it. I did not decide that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, any more than I decided that stealing and murder are morally wrong. The morality I espouse is the result of taking on the moral perspectives imposed on me by my generalized other.
But you and your bag-head generation insist on imposing your morality on the rest of us. So the question is does your morality strengthen the social fabric and further the cause of personal freedom and individual liberty or would it destroy society and undermine liberty? I think John Adams, second President of the United States, answered this question October 11, 1798, in a letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts:
“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
You write, “I agree with you that forcing homosexual marriage on those who morally oppose it is tyranny, but no one is putting a gun to anyone’s head and saying, ‘Marry a homosexual.'”
This is a pointless statement if ever there was one.
First of all, the government doesn’t force anyone to get married, asshat! And secondly, no one has the right to get married because marriage is not a human right; it’s a privilege, even for heterosexuals. Heterosexuals don’t have the right to marry plants, or animals, or parents, or siblings. Government rightly discriminates regarding the privilege of marriage, which means it’s not unreasonable for society to place restrictions on marriage to serve its best interests, i.e., the encouragement of children and families.
The government has supported traditional marriage as a benefit to encourage the formation of strong families to produce future citizens. It hasn’t conveyed special benefits for friendships or other special relationships because it has no compelling reason to do so.
You write, “Big Brother is synonymous for the abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties.”
Damn it! Big Brother isn’t a synonym for the abuse of civil liberties by a government. You have no right to capriciously change the denotative meaning of a word to fit your agenda-driven “argument.”
Totalitarian regimes control all aspects of life. Conversely, authoritarian regimes severely curtail freedom and limit arenas of expression, but they don’t regulate and control their citizens’ thoughts and actions to comply with a particular ideology. Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism; it is a system where power and society are subsumed to an ideology.
Orwell’s Big Brother character personifies a benevolent, ubiquitous dictator in a totalitarian system, as Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge character personifies a misanthrope miser in Victorian England. Big Brother represents more than just a powerful dictator, in the same way that Scrooge represents more than just a greedy rich man.
Your final remark, “only a Sith deals in absolutes” reminds me of a Three Stooges bit I’d seen years ago. Moe and Curly were mulling over some sort of project and the exchange went something like this:
Moe: Are you sure this is gonna work?
Curly: Absolutely!
Moe: There are no absolutes, knucklehead.
Curly: Are you sure?
Moe: Absolutely!
In your mind my opposition to homosexual “marriage” is tantamount to bigotry. In my mind you have entered a rubber room for the reality-challenged where angels fear to tread.
Until reality bites,
I.M. Kane
Read Full Post »
THE MILLSTONE DIARIES 